MrSmith Posted October 27, 2011 Author Share Posted October 27, 2011 Interesting post, where does the dictating come into this? My understanding is that they are trying to change policy by demonstrating. I will admit I'm not entirely sure what their aims are. If I walked into a shop and said I’m not moving until you sell me that at half price, I would be dictating the terms of the sale and using blackmail to achieve it. If I walked into a shop and asked them to sell me something at half price and left without the item when they refused, I would have just exercised my rights to ask, and not infringed on their rights to say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 27, 2011 Author Share Posted October 27, 2011 Forgive me. It was just that I'd never considered a protest being un-democratic. I've never seen anyone protest that was saying "ignore the people and let one person be in charge". I was wondering what made you ask the question in the first place. I didn't ask you, I asked electricman which was in response to his post. We all have rights why is the right to protest more impotent than the rights that are being ignored by the protesters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 My understanding is that they are trying to change policy by demonstrating. I will admit I'm not entirely sure what their aims are. If I walked into a shop and said I’m not moving until you sell me that at half price, I would be dictating the terms of the sale and using blackmail to achieve it. If I walked into a shop and asked them to sell me something at half price and left without the item when they refused, I would have just exercised my rights to ask, and not infringed on their rights to say no. So we'll put their aims to one side for now then. I disagree with the term dictating as my understanding of the word in this sense is being forcibly made to do something which I don't think is happening. I see a group of people letting; lets say the Banks for arguments sake, know how they feel and I gather they along with many Conservative and Labour politicians want the resignation of some faces who appear to be having a laugh. Reference your analogy, the shopkeepers have the right to say no regardless of any wayward demands, it wouldn't be blackmail because you have no leverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 I didn't ask you, I asked electricman which was in response to his post. We all have rights why is the right to protest more impotent than the rights that are being ignored by the protesters. Which ones would they be then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 The Chancellor of St Pauls has resigned this morning. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15472362 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 I would also suggest that people read the comments below aswell the article aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 why is the right to protest more impotent than the rights that are being ignored by the protesters. That's a hard one to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 The Chancellor of St Pauls has resigned this morning. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15472362 And the fact remains... the church has kindly asked the protesters to move on and have been ignored. There is nothing more the church can do, apart from going down the legal avenue. Which, they have every right to do. Why won't the protesters move on? What are they achieving by staying? Surely, it would be in their best interests to move on and find a venue more fitting to their cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Heres another article about what the gilt traders are doing with QE. http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/2120274/cameron-promises-crackdown-gilt-traders-exploit-qe Cameron promised to crack down on it, but it wont happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 And the fact remains... the church has kindly asked the protesters to move on and have been ignored. There is nothing more the church can do, apart from going down the legal avenue. Which, they have every right to do. Why won't the protesters move on? What are they achieving by staying? Surely, it would be in their best interests to move on and find a venue more fitting to their cause. But it's fair to say that some quarters of the church are sympathetic with the protesters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.